Man who beat NSA in T-shirt parody case wins against Ready for Hillary

The Ready for Hillary organization, a group that's laying the groundwork for a potential presidential campaign by Hillary Clinton, has backed down from its demand that a parody T-shirt and related items be removed from an online store.

The maker of the shirt, a Minnesota-based activist named Dan McCall, had previously won a bid to make and sell T-shirts parodying the National Security Agency. Paul Alan Levy, McCall’s attorney, said that he was informed of Ready for Hillary's intention to drop the demand late Thursday.

“Ready for Hillary did not bother notifying McCall of its decision, and it is a good thing that the Eastern District of Virginia does not allow electronic filing of complaints, because our complaint [is] fully drafted and would have been e-filed last night,” he wrote on the blog of his organization, Public Citizen. “Had we filed suit, McCall’s claim for damages for shirts not sold in the interim would have survived the mootness of his claim for declaratory relief, but we have concluded that the case is not worth filing now that Ready for Hillary has, however begrudgingly, done the right thing.”

Ready for Hillary did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment.

The best part is, the shirt retains its comedic value regardless of who emerges as the final presidential candidates.

I wouldn't say that's much of a positive.

I would say it's very positive that people are finally widely recognizing that this is oligarchy. How many years we have endured mountains of bullshit rhetoric about how just and democratic it is to make the rich richer. We're destroying civil society, and can't reverse a course we don't realize we're on.

Here's my political philosophy: I don't vote for immediate relatives of previous officeholders. I can't imagine anything more corrosive to democracy than for relatives of politicians to gain political advantage therefrom. The more this becomes the norm, the more we move towards a hereditary political class.

Democrat, Republican, Independent -- I have my preferences, but I will always vote against the close relative of an existing politician no matter what.

Yup, not very impressed by the amount of choice that's been available in the past few elections, especially from the perspective of family lineage. Bushs, Clintons, enough already. Although I must admit, the last change we had (with our current president), really wasn't much of an improvement as we really don't get much of a choice in things. It's a choice of the least worst candidate.

The best part is, the shirt retains its comedic value regardless of who emerges as the final presidential candidates.

I wouldn't say that's much of a positive.

I would say it's very positive that people are finally widely recognizing that this is oligarchy. How many years we have endured mountains of bullshit rhetoric about how just and democratic it is to make the rich richer. We're destroying civil society, and can't reverse a course we don't realize we're on.

Anyone who remembers how many of the signers of the Declaration of Independance were not land-owners, raise your hand!

Paul Alan Levy, McCall’s attorney, said that he was informed of Ready for Hillary's intention to drop the demand late Thursday.

“Ready for Hillary did not bother notifying McCall of its decision...

That's a disingenuous complaint. RFH notified the lawyer; once a party (McCall) has retained a lawyer (Levy) in a dispute, communicating with the lawyer is exactly what the opposing party (RFH) is supposed to do. RFH notifying McCall directly without his counsel present would be, at a minimum, inappropriate communication that could be construed as RFH trying to wrongfully dodge the attorney.

Quote:

...and it is a good thing that the Eastern District of Virginia does not allow electronic filing of complaints...

The E.D.Va. is such a pain to litigate in.

Edit: Clarification below from Mr. Levy; my criticism based on that quote is withdrawn.

The best part is, the shirt retains its comedic value regardless of who emerges as the final presidential candidates.

I wouldn't say that's much of a positive.

I would say it's very positive that people are finally widely recognizing that this is oligarchy. How many years we have endured mountains of bullshit rhetoric about how just and democratic it is to make the rich richer. We're destroying civil society, and can't reverse a course we don't realize we're on.

Anyone who remembers how many of the signers of the Declaration of Independance were not land-owners, raise your hand!

Didn't we move to universal suffrage for a reason?If we're going to have oligarchy, why not just go all out and return to the original voter requirements?

Here's my political philosophy: I don't vote for immediate relatives of previous officeholders. I can't imagine anything more corrosive to democracy than for relatives of politicians to gain political advantage therefrom. The more this becomes the norm, the more we move towards a hereditary political class.

Democrat, Republican, Independent -- I have my preferences, but I will always vote against the close relative of an existing politician no matter what.

That's as poisonous as your feared result. You should vote for whomever you think is the best candidate, regardless of relationships. If we happened to have 3 generations of exceptional leaders, I'd vote for each one because they're the best candidates.

Here's my political philosophy: I don't vote for immediate relatives of previous officeholders. I can't imagine anything more corrosive to democracy than for relatives of politicians to gain political advantage therefrom. The more this becomes the norm, the more we move towards a hereditary political class.

Democrat, Republican, Independent -- I have my preferences, but I will always vote against the close relative of an existing politician no matter what.

That's as poisonous as your feared result. You should vote for whomever you think is the best candidate, regardless of relationships. If we happened to have 3 generations of exceptional leaders, I'd vote for each one because they're the best candidates.

It is my opinion, that it is impossible for someone, who has a huge advantage due to relationship with a previous famous politician, to be the best candidate.

There is someone better. We just don't realize it because the name recognition of the nepotist candidate blinds us to the alternatives.

Here's my political philosophy: I don't vote for immediate relatives of previous officeholders. I can't imagine anything more corrosive to democracy than for relatives of politicians to gain political advantage therefrom. The more this becomes the norm, the more we move towards a hereditary political class.

Democrat, Republican, Independent -- I have my preferences, but I will always vote against the close relative of an existing politician no matter what.

That's as poisonous as your feared result. You should vote for whomever you think is the best candidate, regardless of relationships. If we happened to have 3 generations of exceptional leaders, I'd vote for each one because they're the best candidates.

Or, more likely these days, because they're the least bad candidate.

Theoretically, that's true, but it's a statistical anonymaly in a country with more than 300 million, especially if you limit it to the nuclear family.

Here's my political philosophy: I don't vote for immediate relatives of previous officeholders. I can't imagine anything more corrosive to democracy than for relatives of politicians to gain political advantage therefrom. The more this becomes the norm, the more we move towards a hereditary political class.

Democrat, Republican, Independent -- I have my preferences, but I will always vote against the close relative of an existing politician no matter what.

That's as poisonous as your feared result. You should vote for whomever you think is the best candidate, regardless of relationships. If we happened to have 3 generations of exceptional leaders, I'd vote for each one because they're the best candidates.

It is my opinion, that it is impossible for someone, who has a huge advantage due to relationship with a previous famous politician, to be the best candidate.

There is someone better. We just don't realize it because the name recognition of the nepotist candidate blinds us to the alternatives.

You've got a point. Hillary's big lead in 2007 squeezed all the other Democratic candidates out of the field. No one else stood a chance.

The best part is, the shirt retains its comedic value regardless of who emerges as the final presidential candidates.

I wouldn't say that's much of a positive.

I would say it's very positive that people are finally widely recognizing that this is oligarchy. How many years we have endured mountains of bullshit rhetoric about how just and democratic it is to make the rich richer. We're destroying civil society, and can't reverse a course we don't realize we're on.

Anyone who remembers how many of the signers of the Declaration of Independance were not land-owners, raise your hand!

Didn't we move to universal suffrage for a reason?If we're going to have oligarchy, why not just go all out and return to the original voter requirements?

Well, the electoral college is still in place, so I'm not sure what that would do, besides eliminate the targetting of minorities, women and the poor by political compaigns.

It is my opinion, that it is impossible for someone, who has a huge advantage due to relationship with a previous famous politician, to be the best candidate.

There is someone better. We just don't realize it because the name recognition of the nepotist candidate blinds us to the alternatives.

It's unlikely and improbable that the relative is the _best_ candidate, but it's not altogether impossible. Impossible and improbable are two totally different things. One makes you look like a moron, the other makes you look like a realist.

Saying it's altogether impossible is a grossly misguided, and very close-minded, absolute assumption. In other words, it fits perfectly into the whole "This is the only way it should be" mindset that's boning the country right now.

Paul Alan Levy, McCall’s attorney, said that he was informed of Ready for Hillary's intention to drop the demand late Thursday.

“Ready for Hillary did not bother notifying McCall of its decision...

That's a disingenuous complaint. RFH notified the lawyer; once a party (McCall) has retained a lawyer (Levy) in a dispute, communicating with the lawyer is exactly what the opposing party (RFH) is supposed to do. RFH notifying McCall directly without his counsel present would be, at a minimum, inappropriate communication that could be construed as RFH trying to wrongfully dodge the attorney.

Quote:

...and it is a good thing that the Eastern District of Virginia does not allow electronic filing of complaints...

The E.D.Va. is such a pain to litigate in.

Note to skyywise: I am afraid I was not as clear as perhaps I should have been, When I said that Ready for Hillary had not notified McCall, when I meant was that Ready for Hillary's lawyer did not notify me (McCall's lawyer).

I learned from Zazzle's inhouse counsel that Zazzle had received a retraction from the same law firm that issued the takedown notice.

Yup, not very impressed by the amount of choice that's been available in the past few elections, especially from the perspective of family lineage. Bushs, Clintons, enough already. Although I must admit, the last change we had (with our current president), really wasn't much of an improvement as we really don't get much of a choice in things. It's a choice of the least worst candidate.

Paul Alan Levy, McCall’s attorney, said that he was informed of Ready for Hillary's intention to drop the demand late Thursday.

“Ready for Hillary did not bother notifying McCall of its decision...

That's a disingenuous complaint. RFH notified the lawyer; once a party (McCall) has retained a lawyer (Levy) in a dispute, communicating with the lawyer is exactly what the opposing party (RFH) is supposed to do. RFH notifying McCall directly without his counsel present would be, at a minimum, inappropriate communication that could be construed as RFH trying to wrongfully dodge the attorney.

Quote:

...and it is a good thing that the Eastern District of Virginia does not allow electronic filing of complaints...

The E.D.Va. is such a pain to litigate in.

Note to skyywise: I am afraid I was not as clear as perhaps I should have been, When I said that Ready for Hillary had not notified McCall, when I meant was that Ready for Hillary's lawyer did not notify me (McCall's lawyer).

I learned from Zazzle's inhouse counsel that Zazzle had received a retraction from the same law firm that issued the takedown notice.

Hey - just wanted to let you know that you do some great work, and I for one am glad there are lawyers like you out there. Keep it up.

Here's my political philosophy: I don't vote for immediate relatives of previous officeholders. I can't imagine anything more corrosive to democracy than for relatives of politicians to gain political advantage therefrom. The more this becomes the norm, the more we move towards a hereditary political class.

Democrat, Republican, Independent -- I have my preferences, but I will always vote against the close relative of an existing politician no matter what.

That's as poisonous as your feared result.

It is consistent with his or her attempt to level the playing field. It certainly isn't as poisonous as the feared result.

The amount of ignorance in this country over Hillary's past and current roles is shockingly frightening. This lady is essentially going to destroy this nation if granted power... yet again the elite agenda will push it through in either means possible. As always, she will play the "feminist" card towards everybody to suppress those who disagree and put them in silence. Not much different than playing the "black" card. It's a disgusting double standard game.

Paul Alan Levy, McCall’s attorney, said that he was informed of Ready for Hillary's intention to drop the demand late Thursday.

“Ready for Hillary did not bother notifying McCall of its decision...

That's a disingenuous complaint. RFH notified the lawyer; once a party (McCall) has retained a lawyer (Levy) in a dispute, communicating with the lawyer is exactly what the opposing party (RFH) is supposed to do. RFH notifying McCall directly without his counsel present would be, at a minimum, inappropriate communication that could be construed as RFH trying to wrongfully dodge the attorney.

Quote:

...and it is a good thing that the Eastern District of Virginia does not allow electronic filing of complaints...

The E.D.Va. is such a pain to litigate in.

Note to skyywise: I am afraid I was not as clear as perhaps I should have been, When I said that Ready for Hillary had not notified McCall, when I meant was that Ready for Hillary's lawyer did not notify me (McCall's lawyer).

I learned from Zazzle's inhouse counsel that Zazzle had received a retraction from the same law firm that issued the takedown notice.

Goddamnit... and I'm a Hillary supporter. Why do I need to be teaching liberals in this day and age about the Streisand effect?

You people laughing at this, it's entirely your right to laugh, but I seriously don't get why it's so funny.

Hmm...maybe you need to look up the definition of "Oligarchy." Appropriate that he's using a potential oligarch's motto against her.

The shirt is very appropriate, but I'll support the original commenter and say I don't find this funny either. Maybe a little sad and apropos, but not even black comedy funny. I completely support the shirt maker's right to parody, I just have different tastes.

Here's my political philosophy: I don't vote for immediate relatives of previous officeholders. I can't imagine anything more corrosive to democracy than for relatives of politicians to gain political advantage therefrom. The more this becomes the norm, the more we move towards a hereditary political class.

Democrat, Republican, Independent -- I have my preferences, but I will always vote against the close relative of an existing politician no matter what.

Here's my political theory.

Never trust a man or woman who WANTS to be a politician.

Ever.

I seriously wish we could do away with an electable congress and instead just make public service just like jury duty. Your number comes up you get the job for one year (including the pay) . You're not there long enough to do damage.

I mean seriously how much worse could my idea be? At least people would know who to blame (themselves) if things went all to shit.

The best part is, the shirt retains its comedic value regardless of who emerges as the final presidential candidates.

At some point I'm going to have to come up with a non-sexist replacement for "IMPEACH THE BASTARD," which has until now had the same quality of never needing to be changed or removed once emblazoned upon one's bumper.